Re: [AMC-list] AMC/Jeep J-10 Five Speeds & other mods

[Wrambler <wrambler242@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

while the system may look better/more compact the shorter swing arms 
would have a larger impact on camber change throughout the arc of travel.

it'd be interesting to know what import of data, cost or real world use caused
Jeep to back off and stop using the system.

Mark Price
Morgantown, WV 26508
1969 AMC Rambler, 4.0L, EFI, T-5
2004 Grand Cherokee Laredo, 4.7L, Quadratrac II
"I realize that death is inevitable.
I just don't want to be around when it happens!"

----- "Peter Marano" <pmarano@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> From: "Peter Marano" <pmarano@xxxxxxxxx>
> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sunday, June 6, 2010 1:38:06 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: Re: [AMC-list] AMC/Jeep J-10 Five Speeds & other mods
>
> >
> >   
> 
> Look at the lubrication drawing in the J-Series Service manual.  It
> shows the upper control arms. 
> 
> Peter Marano
> Kenosha WI
> >> Message: 4
> >> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 17:02:42 -0400
> >> From: Frank Swygert <farna@xxxxxxx>
> >> To: amc-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Subject: Re: [AMC-list] AMC/Jeep J-10 Five Speeds & other mods
> >> Message-ID: <4C0ABB72.0@xxxxxxx>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> >>
> >> I wrote a detailed article covering the early Jeep IFS in Spring
> 2009 (AMC #11). Whitle the suspension LOOKS a bit different from the
> Ford "Twin Traction Beam", it is essentially the same. Looking from
> the front of the 63-64 Wagoneer there is a joint in the center just to
> the right of the diff. The axle "breaks" at that joint, there is a
> stub axle going into the diff, then a u-joint, then an axle continuing
> to the left front wheel. Ford's "Twin Traction Beam" has a heavier
> "arm" extending all the way to the opposite side of the frame, but
> still has only one u-joint "breaking" the axle in the center similar
> to the old Jeep IFS. The Jeep IFS has the center joint anchored to a
> crossmember at the break point instead of overlapping beams. The
> suspension support structure is totally different, but the essential
> way that the suspension works is the same -- on central u-joint, axle
> on each side, no change in camber as the wheels move (which is
> typically known as a "swing axle"). T
>  he 
> >>  Jeep IFS sure is a lot more compact and less bulky than the Ford
> TTB, the Jeep looks MUCH better!!
> >>
> >> ---------
> >> Date: Sat, 05 Jun 2010 07:56:41 -0500
> >> From: Peter Marano<pmarano@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> Frank wrote:
> >> It's like the later Ford "solid axle" IFS, where the axle
> >> is "broken" in the center. Late 50s and early 60s rear drive
> Mercedes
> >> IRS axles are done the same way. And of course the VW bug and
> early
> >> Corvair. There is no allowance for changing camber as the
> suspension
> >> travels (wheels stay perpendicular to the ends of the axles) , and
> >> travel is limited. For a street/light trail (rough road) truck the
> >> limited travel is fine. The few FSJs that got the IFS weren't used
> for
> >> off roading I'm sure.
> >>
> >> Peter replied:
> >> No, it is not. Are you going to look at the
> >> suspension drawings? Peter Marano Kenosha WI
> >
> >
> >   
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =======
> Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
> (Email Guard: 7.0.0.18, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.15150)
> http://www.pctools.com/
> =======
> _______________________________________________
> AMC-list mailing list
> AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com
_______________________________________________
AMC-list mailing list
AMC-list@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://list.amc-list.com/listinfo.cgi/amc-list-amc-list.com